Northampton panel grants certificate of appropriateness for three-building project at 3 Elm Street with conditions

The Northampton Historical Commission voted to grant a local historic-district certificate of appropriateness for a proposed three-building mixed-use development at 3 Elm Street, parcel noted in the meeting record as Parcel 31D-103HIS-247.

The commission acted at its March 31, 2025, meeting after reviewing updated drawings and renderings submitted by the project team and hearing public comment and commissioner questions. Commissioner Michael Curtin moved to file the certificate “for the design as presented,” and Commissioner Hannah seconded the motion; the roll call recorded in the meeting transcript shows Commissioners Hannah (yes), Michael (yes) and Chair Martha (yes) voting in favor.

The certificate covers the architectural character and facade treatments shown to the commission at the hearing; the planning board will separately review and continue to review the project for stormwater, traffic, trip generation and other site-planning issues. Sarah (staff) clarified that the commission’s approval applies to the design as reviewed at the hearing and that “if significant changes were to be made, then an additional review would be necessary.”

Why it matters: The proposed development lies within or adjacent to the city’s historic district and fronts Elm and State streets near St. Mary’s Church. The commission’s review focuses on compatibility of materials, fenestration, massing and pedestrian-scale treatments because the site sits on a prominent downtown corner; the commission’s approval is a required local authorization before certain exterior changes may proceed.

Project team presentation and revision highlights Charles Roberts, the project architect with CUNRIL, presented revisions developed in parallel with the planning board. Roberts said the team had reduced large apartment windows on the corner block, introduced a cornice line to “help anchor the building,” and shifted to a punched-window rhythm on the apartment elevation. He described landscape and stormwater work that included raised planters, tree plantings and rain gardens along the State Street elevation. Roberts told the commission, “we’ve added a cornice line along the top of the building” and that the team had altered window patterns to better match the scale of downtown openings.

Commission comments and requested refinements Commissioners and public speakers praised changes while asking for additional, more detailed work in several areas: engineering and long-term viability of street-tree plantings; replacing low ornamental shrubs near the terraces with taller street trees that provide canopy and shade; careful specification of structural soil, tree grates or permeable pavers to support mature root systems; and consideration of additional cornice detailing or darker facade tones to better relate the new work to nearby historic buildings.

Commissioners Douglas and Hannah both emphasized tree-planting design and long-term survival. Douglas asked whether the sidewalk plantings would be benches or garden beds; Charles and the landscape team explained the design intent was a combination of planters, benches and wood elements that wrap the small public park and patio. Hannah asked the project team to consider darker tones for the non-brick cladding to make the corner brick massing read more prominently against the larger block.

Public comment Nearby residents and downtown stakeholders told the commission they welcomed the revisions but urged attention to the project’s interface with the sidewalk and streetscape. Patricia Lee Lewis, a resident of the Old School Commons across the street, said she was glad to hear the team discuss tree-root engineering and praised the added cornices. Another resident, Kathleen Coleman, said she worried about the potential for commercial vacancy and the visual effect of large expanses of concrete but praised the responsiveness of the project team.

Conditions and next steps The commission’s approval explicitly leaves signage to a later review: the commission recorded a condition that signage will be addressed separately and would require a separate certificate of appropriateness. The commission also asked the project team to submit a final plan set consistent with the materials and details presented; staff confirmed that significant departures from the approved drawings will require additional review.

The planning board remains the authority for site-level engineering matters—stormwater, trip generation, and traffic flow—that the commission noted lie outside its design review. The project team said it will continue coordination with the planning board and the city arborist as the design develops.

Quotes “I would move that we file a certificate of appropriateness for the design as presented,” Commissioner Michael Curtin said when making the motion to approve. “We’ve added a cornice line along the top of the building,” Charles Roberts, the project architect, said while describing the revisions.

Ending The commission voted to approve the design as presented with the conditions noted above. The project team thanked the commission and said it would return with any minor follow-ups and final details as required by planning and historic-review processes.